UK to get first Dutch-style roundabout in Cambridge

[Owain]

It is though, even though we all do it.

"I thought it was sloblock" is not a legal defence after all; we have the right to ignore a law but with that comes the acceptance if you get caught...

There may very well have been a reason for the seemingly low limit but we have no evidence either way. Move to the left most lane and let the "I knows best" types go past and have their own incident.

I was alone on the M25 in the middle of the night once, when three lanes were inexplicably showing "20" and the other two were showing "40".

I simply switched from a 20 lane into a 40 lane so that I could keep going at 40-ish, even though there was absolutely no traffic other than my own car!

[c2R]

I was alone on the M25 in the middle of the night once, when three lanes were inexplicably showing "20" and the other two were showing "40".

I simply switched from a 20 lane into a 40 lane so that I could keep going at 40-ish, even though there was absolutely no traffic other than my own car!

I've seen this sort of nonsense on the M25 around the Watford and St Albans section all too often, with different lanes displaying different speeds or no speeds at all...

[Chris5156]

I appreciate your taking the time to reply in such detail, but you have twisted what I said, and as a result I am not convinced that you have understood my point.

In which case, my apologies - that wasn't my intention at all.

The discussion has moved on quite a bit and I don't really disagree with anything you wrote in reply, but I will add this:

I have never worked as a traffic engineer, but I have worked in public sector programmes (and I made a direct contribution to the methodology of MSP). From this experience, I know that it is a common mistake for public sector projects to focus solely on the technical aspects of the design, and ignore the other vital elements (including, but not limited to, communication and training). I suspect that we are only hearing in this thread from people who do the technical bits.

That I can fully sympathise with, and as you say it's not a phenomenon unique to highway engineering. I know from my own line of work that technology changes (in a very technology-focused organisation, too) are usually led by people who are thinking only of the technology change, and managing people successfully through that change is something that is missing virtually every time.

[nowster]

To follow on from Chris, also think of a gadget freak with lots of "must have" gizmos they used for a few weeks then put in the back of a drawer until they looked in some years later and found the batteries had leaked.

[Graham]

"I thought it was sloblock" is not a legal defence after all; we have the right to ignore a law but with that comes the acceptance if you get caught...

The flipside of this is that, in a democratic society, there always must be a mechanism to hold people in power to account for their decisions. When this fails, it can fail catastrophically - just look at the Gosport Hospital story for an example of this.

So, whilst it is correct to say that anyone who breaks a speed limit can and should be punished if and when they are caught, it is also legitimate to ask whether that speed limit should have been set in the first place. I would suggest that we do not at present have a good enough process for this.

Similarly, when a local authority is making a determined crackdown on motorists (and I come back to Avon and Somerset police here), it is legitimate to ask whether this crackdown really is making our roads safer and, if not, how its continued application can be justified. The process for this is also unclear.

[Bryn666]

1,700+ deaths a year from bad driving suggest that enforcement action against it IS warranted...

The furore over one fatality caused by a bad cyclist recently vis a vis the relative silence from the average 5 deaths caused by all other vehicles suggests that a lot of work remains to be done to create a culture of courteous and safe driving instead of demanding the car is always king.

And I am a driver but the amount of self importance and entitlement demonstrated by other drivers elsewhere shows we have a major problem with attitudes to road use.

[A9NWIL]

"I thought it was sloblock" is not a legal defence after all; we have the right to ignore a law but with that comes the acceptance if you get caught...

The flipside of this is that, in a democratic society, there always must be a mechanism to hold people in power to account for their decisions. When this fails, it can fail catastrophically - just look at the Gosport Hospital story for an example of this.

So, whilst it is correct to say that anyone who breaks a speed limit can and should be punished if and when they are caught, it is also legitimate to ask whether that speed limit should have been set in the first place. I would suggest that we do not at present have a good enough process for this.

Similarly, when a local authority is making a determined crackdown on motorists (and I come back to Avon and Somerset police here), it is legitimate to ask whether this crackdown really is making our roads safer and, if not, how its continued application can be justified. The process for this is also unclear.

1,700+ deaths a year from bad driving suggest that enforcement action against it IS warranted...

The furore over one fatality caused by a bad cyclist recently vis a vis the relative silence from the average 5 deaths caused by all other vehicles suggests that a lot of work remains to be done to create a culture of courteous and safe driving instead of demanding the car is always king.

And I am a driver but the amount of self importance and entitlement demonstrated by other drivers elsewhere shows we have a major problem with attitudes to road use.

From what I see any 'crackdowns' tend to focus on speed, for the simple reason that its the easiest to measure. This isnt the best approach in retrospect as you can easily be within the limit, drive badly and cause a crash. Equally you could be over the speed limit and be driving safely enough that you wont cause a crash or any issues to other drivers.

The authorities just see speed as the easy thing to get people on and see it as a cash cow on the side too! They dont look at the whole picture.

If perhaps at an accident black spot they kept some police there at certain busy or trouble times, who were looking for bad driving more than speed, then I would be more supportive of such measures.
In this instance speed guns arent the answer, perhaps a video recording of the time the cops are sitting there so that they can document offences, but essentially it would be what the police would be spotting by eye not through electronic devices.

Yes that kind of thing may cost more, but I believe it would save more lives than just a camera at the side of the road clinically getting people above a certain speed.

[Bryn666]

I don't buy the "police only focus on speed" line. Yes it's easy work but it is, like it or lump it, part of the remit of road safety.

Are laws against littering cash cows? Or do we only really object to things we think we should be allowed to do damn the consequences?

As it happens, I have been stopped at two random breath test check points, had a licence and insurance check done on me, and seen police run car seat checks. They target all kinds of bad driving; a recent one is passing cyclists too closely.

[A9NWIL]

I don't buy the "police only focus on speed" line. Yes it's easy work but it is, like it or lump it, part of the remit of road safety.

Are laws against littering cash cows? Or do we only really object to things we think we should be allowed to do damn the consequences?

As it happens, I have been stopped at two random breath test check points, had a licence and insurance check done on me, and seen police run car seat checks. They target all kinds of bad driving; a recent one is passing cyclists too closely.

Im not saying the police dont pick you up on such things, but the main focus is normally on speed, especially when there is so many cameras around these days.
Im also not saying they shouldnt pick you up on speed, but instead of just focusing on a number, like a camera would an actual human police officer can see a driver and judge the situation of a potentially offending driver. That means that if the speed still looks safe, without measuring it, for the conditions then they shouldnt pull a driver over. If a driver is under the limit but the conditions arent safe for the limit then a driver should be pulled over. Now Im sure this does happen with police, but this couldnt happen with a camera as thats too rigid.

For example if littering was done with camera enforcement then any accident could be picked up and many would end up getting fined in a way that most would see as unfair.
Its the human aspect to enforcement that makes it fairer for everyone involved, yes that should be backed up with evidence so there is little or no chance of corruption, but that should only be used as retrospective evidence after someone is caught by police, not as the main enforcement method.

This could mean that more people get away with being a bit over in many more circumstances and it could be a little more than the 10% in some cases too, but the main thing is that its not just a numbers game, so it will mean more when people are caught for offences. I would say that its likely that if caught most people wouldnt be resentful, but instead see the point of why they were caught much more clearly, as Im sure those that are caught by actual police are a lot of the time.

[JF2309]

Basically this entire thread is rammed full of people who have zero traffic engineering experience saying:

‘Oh I’m not having that! This Dutcn Style roundabout has lot of traffic Management things that I’m absolutely familiar with I just don’t like the idea of being held up for upto 14 seconds by an NMU’

When thats failed its: ‘WHAT ABOUT SPEEDING THOUGH?’

In the bin.

[FosseWay]

1,700+ deaths a year from bad driving suggest that enforcement action against it IS warranted...

Yes, absolutely. But that enforcement should be targeted (a) in ways that give the best improvements, and (b) in ways that do not affect people whose road use is not notably dangerous. Note the broad categorisation there: it's not just about drivers. Speed humps affect bus passengers, for example, who do not (at least not while they're on the bus) contribute to danger on the roads at all.

The authorities that impose restrictions on road use should present clear statistically rigorous argument in favour, and follow up the introduction of the measure with further studies that show it had the intended effect, and if it didn't, remove it. So long as we don't have this information, you're going to have an uphill struggle convincing people that measures that mess with their lives are necessary. No-one's going to argue with you when you say that saving lives is more important than shaving 5 minutes off someone's commuting time. Where the problem lies is if you add to commuting time without any demonstrable improvement in life-saving (or whatever the parameter being measured is).

And I am a driver but the amount of self importance and entitlement demonstrated by other drivers elsewhere shows we have a major problem with attitudes to road use.

And I'm a driver, PT user, cyclist and pedestrian. We do have a major problem with attitudes to road use but it is far from restricted to drivers. You should see the number of times pedestrians walk straight out into the cycle path without looking, in a way that they are very unlikely to do on a road.

It seems to be a widespread problem that as soon as a safety problem on a particular road is identified, the knee-jerk reaction is to get motorists to slow down. Sometimes it's actually not the motorists that are the problem, or at least not those who obey the current restrictions, but rather the other road users. I agree that if you choose to pilot a ton of metal around at fairly high speed you have a major responsibility not to hurt other people with it, even if the other people are not being particularly cooperative in the process. But those other people also have a responsibility, whether they are cyclists or pedestrians, and in those cases where the biggest wins can be gained by dinning common sense into those groups, we should not shy away from doing so on political grounds.

I'll also repeat what I've said on the various cycling threads in the past: Within reason when I'm cycling, I couldn't give a fig how fast cars drive or which side of the posted limit they're on. What I want drivers to do is to look and act on what they see. I've had one collision on my bike with another vehicle and a handful of near-misses in well into 5 figures of commuting miles. In every single one of those cases, the conflict has occurred at a fraction of the posted speed limit and has not involved inappropriate speed but rather inattention by either the driver or me, or (on one occasion only) deliberate bloodymindedness by a driver.

[Jim606]

From what I can ascertain the proposed roundabout in Cambridge will be very Dutch in terms of actual design whereby cyclists have priority. Please see these video clips from YouTube. They both seem to work with a circular design. The one in Amsterdam even has tram tracks running thru' the centre.



TfL's attempt at a Dutch-style roundabout in Battersea doesn't have priority for cyclists at the junctions. It also has some terribly sharp 90degree kerbs to delineate the cycle routes and the whole thing seems to cover a much larger area? Plus, there doesn't seem to be any connecting / incoming dedicated cycle paths, just advisory lanes painted on the side of the road. The Dutch roundabouts seem to be part of the integrated network which makes a big difference. I wonder if this will be the same in Cambridge? I've also added a video about the situation in Bedford with the Turbo. My criticism of the Bedford case was it didn't include dedicated cycle paths around the edge only shared-use with pedestrians. Therefore, Bedford still mixed cyclists with vehicles and pedestrians. Thankfully, Cambridge will be different in this respect.

[A9NWIL]

From what I can ascertain the proposed roundabout in Cambridge will be very Dutch in terms of actual design whereby cyclists have priority. Please see these video clips from YouTube. They both seem to work with a circular design. The one in Amsterdam even has tram tracks running thru' the centre.



TfL's attempt at a Dutch-style roundabout in Battersea doesn't have priority for cyclists at the junctions. It also has some terribly sharp 90degree kerbs to delineate the cycle routes and the whole thing seems to cover a much larger area? Plus, there doesn't seem to be any connecting / incoming dedicated cycle paths, just advisory lanes painted on the side of the road. The Dutch roundabouts seem to be part of the integrated network which makes a big difference. I wonder if this will be the same in Cambridge? I've also added a video about the situation in Bedford with the Turbo. My criticism of the Bedford case was it didn't include dedicated cycle paths around the edge only shared-use with pedestrians. Therefore, Bedford still mixed cyclists with vehicles and pedestrians. Thankfully, Cambridge will be different in this respect.

Well from watching the Dutch ones I see that a lot of motorised traffic backs up on the roundabout, that needs to be eliminated and the only way I see that happening is by giving motorists priority.
Its not so bad having a few cyclists waiting, but when you have a combination of cars, buses and lorries clogging the motorised part isnt a good idea.

[Graham]

Basically this entire thread is rammed full of people who have zero traffic engineering experience saying:

‘Oh I’m not having that! This Dutcn Style roundabout has lot of traffic Management things that I’m absolutely familiar with I just don’t like the idea of being held up for upto 14 seconds by an NMU’

When thats failed its: ‘WHAT ABOUT SPEEDING THOUGH?’

In the bin.

It also seems to be full of people who love having the power to tell other people what to do, but who don't understand that power must always be tempered with accountability.

[Johnathan404]

It also seems to be full of people who love having the power to tell other people what to do, but who don't understand that power must always be tempered with accountability.

Correct. Like "I am licensed to drive a two-ton vehicle, I must be held accountable if I don't know what a zebra crossing is".

[JF2309]

Basically this entire thread is rammed full of people who have zero traffic engineering experience saying:

‘Oh I’m not having that! This Dutcn Style roundabout has lot of traffic Management things that I’m absolutely familiar with I just don’t like the idea of being held up for upto 14 seconds by an NMU’

When thats failed its: ‘WHAT ABOUT SPEEDING THOUGH?’

In the bin.

It also seems to be full of people who love having the power to tell other people what to do, but who don't understand that power must always be tempered with accountability.

Heroically bad take there.

Your lack of self awareness is simply dazzling, and the way you’ve just owned yourself is something quite remarkable.

Your actions will result in consequences wether they be good or bad.

I like the idea of having this power that you’ve thrust upon me. What does it afford me?

[Graham]

Heroically bad take there.

Your lack of self awareness is simply dazzling, and the way you’ve just owned yourself is something quite remarkable.

You could try and make a reasoned response to the various points I (and others) have made throughout the thread. Or maybe it suits your purposes to troll the thread by making offensive comments and adding nothing of substance to the discussion?

[ChrisH]

I feel I should point out that, strictly speaking, one of these roundabouts has already been built in the UK.

It was part of the trials that TfL ran at TRL; sadly the Google satellite imagery has been updated and now the roundabout has been removed. (I believe that TRL's whole track is being removed and redeveloped - sadly.)

These kind of roundabouts do reduce the capacity of motorised vehicles and so they're not suitable everywhere - but in some cases the huge improvement in safety and convenience for people cycling and walking will make them a worthwhile choice.

I've been baffled by the comments of some contributors in this thread, who seem to assume that these kind of designs are nodded through with no consideration for people's behaviour; or indeed that this roundabout would be built with no education or publicity around its introduction. It seems obvious to me that the local authority and/or the consultants will be carrying out this work as part of the assurance process of the project. But sure, if it makes you feel better to have a pop at the authorities then go ahead...

[Debaser]

Please note that Queens Circus is not a 'Dutch style roundabout'. It's what TfL came up with to prevent left hooks occurring at the exits of signalised roundabouts. A representation of one of the exits is shown in Figure 2.7.1.1 of Interim Advice Note 195.

http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/h ... ian195.pdf

[JF2309]

Heroically bad take there.

Your lack of self awareness is simply dazzling, and the way you’ve just owned yourself is something quite remarkable.

You could try and make a reasoned response to the various points I (and others) have made throughout the thread. Or maybe it suits your purposes to troll the thread by making offensive comments and adding nothing of substance to the discussion?

You prevented any substance being involved in the discussion by not being able to take responsibility for your own driving but feeling the need to whinge your bag off about laws preventing you doing what you want. Hence the self own. If you were self aware in anyway you’d have shut up and drifted away a long time ago; and now through an absolute lack of defence of your point you’ve resorted to calling me a Troll.

I think you need to address this instead if avoiding it.

It also seems to be full of people who love having the power to tell other people what to do, but who don't understand that power must always be tempered with accountability.

Correct. Like "I am licensed to drive a two-ton vehicle, I must be held accountable if I don't know what a zebra crossing is".